IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers

Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com> Sat, 05 January 2013 09:04 UTC

Return-Path: <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02F5E21F87F5 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 01:04:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z-baewDlU3i9 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 01:04:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vb0-f49.google.com (mail-vb0-f49.google.com [209.85.212.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29A1721F8673 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 01:04:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vb0-f49.google.com with SMTP id r6so17098569vbi.8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sat, 05 Jan 2013 01:04:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=5qWSarzdKRHkrDtiFYYaoc84twgdWyBWvGXk37BJCcc=; b=UvlXjjMFRUtLmFa9Vkk50gaSF2ksicaMiDHtyPY552ozDbE6zmvq8agXv8csKR3C7t hNnczIvrlwFDwvqmGkOwaJ99e/ISRtHLRjgVDlKiSKIl++f+gGpsRLNDDawJPm/Mr4fU G0VbqHKGRJKtOzDrhkS8jeaHkpoieh95H71fH4VeG0TiaWA9iaUK6YyMuIN+eNOzJkrh 3O6y8UNpZoPac+qAHDOD/RvBJ/Q1xOK3zD2CfGBOg6boOi9Vi2IVUQb5dMr9cxLwRE1+ fiugkPm5eWYUTUYBewn+laAq30MbErCFEAKNwdKmc5I/0BbWWsug19PR6Q9vKe/b2BtU 3VlQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.107.5 with SMTP id z5mr79052677vco.22.1357376676661; Sat, 05 Jan 2013 01:04:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.145.5 with HTTP; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 01:04:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CADnDZ8-yCxUbrD9oFyQKkJuTgDZbamnV8K4GU+sAN5SekpyHAA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADnDZ8-yCxUbrD9oFyQKkJuTgDZbamnV8K4GU+sAN5SekpyHAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 10:04:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CADnDZ88XgyNXiu1fdK3WB7jrZTmfuvAc5U1XyAxjprZf6=7P4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Making RFC2119 key language easier to Protocol Readers
From: Abdussalam Baryun <abdussalambaryun@gmail.com>
To: swmike@swm.pp.se
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: ietf <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 09:04:38 -0000

I totally agree with you,

AB

+++
As an operator, I purchase equipment and need to write RFQs. I would
like to able to ask more than "does the product implement RFC
<whatever>", I want to also ask "Please document all instances where
you did not follow all MUST and SHOULD, and why".

Otherwise I think there needs to be better definition of what it means
to "implement" or "support" an RFC when it comes to completness and
what this means as per following SHOULD and MAY.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email